Consciusness IS NOT MATTER

[elias_marquez_zoho]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

Obviously, but they don't sense light

So, why mention light in this?

Is there anything special about light, or is it just one of teh ways we get information?

 

When I say "light" I mean the elemental particle of the electromagnetic field.

[John Cuthber]

Just now, elias_marquez_zoho said:

 

When I say "light" I mean the elemental particle of the electromagnetic field.

So does everyone else.

Why did you feel the need to say that?

Also, did you consider answering that actual question I asked?

 

[elias_marquez_zoho]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

So does everyone else.

Why did you feel the need to say that?

Also, did you consider answering that actual question I asked?

 

 

All the information our senses take is obtained through the exchange of photons between charged particles. Sight, hearing, smelling...

[John Cuthber]

22 minutes ago, elias_marquez_zoho said:

 

All the information our senses take is obtained through the exchange of photons between charged particles. Sight, hearing, smelling...

Sure, but nothing to do with whether or not consciousness is a state of matter, and more than green is a state of matter.

[elias_marquez_zoho]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Sure, but nothing to do with whether or not consciousness is a state of matter, and more than green is a state of matter.

Green emerges from solid, liquid, gas matter as an electromagnetic wave.

Conscioussness IS NOT an electromagnetic wave. Can't you see the difference?

[John Cuthber]

Just now, elias_marquez_zoho said:

 

Conscioussness IS NOT an electromagnetic wave. Can't you see the difference?

I never said that it was.

Venice is not London, but they are both places.

Conscious is not green, but they are both emergent properties.

 

If you label one emergent property as being a "state of matter", why do you not label the other emergent property as being a state of matter?

[elias_marquez_zoho]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

I never said that it was.

Venice is not London, but they are both places.

Conscious is not green, but they are both emergent properties.

 

If you label one emergent property as being a "state of matter", why do you not label the other emergent property as being a state of matter?

 

 

Green is not an "emergent property", green is an interpretation of a wavelenght made by your conscioussness.

Conscioussness is an emergent property? Obvious. But not from matter, as conscioussness works with both matter and energy, and this is scientifically, empirically, proved.

[John Cuthber]

The ability to (relatively) selectively reflect green light is an emergent property.

It's the property usually called being green.it's an idea we expect preschoolers to get the hang of.

This video may help you

 I just painted a piece of wood with preservative. the preservative is green.

That's because it contains copper naphthenate.

But none of the atoms which make up copper naphthenatei s green.

The property of being green emerges from the arrangement of those atoms.

4 minutes ago, elias_marquez_zoho said:

and this is scientifically, empirically, proved.

It's conceivable that your statement is true, however you have not got anywhere near to proving it.

[elias_marquez_zoho]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

The ability to (relatively) selectively reflect green light is an emergent property.

It's the property usually called being green.it's an idea we expect preschoolers to get the hang of.

This video may help you

 I just painted a piece of wood with preservative. the preservative is green.

That's because it contains copper naphthenate.

But none of the atoms which make up copper naphthenatei s green.

The property of being green emerges from the arrangement of those atoms.

It's conceivable that your statement is true, however you have not got anywhere near to proving it.

 

1.No, it's a particular wavelenght. You see it green, a dog sees it in black and white.

2. We are supposed to be much higher than pre-school level.

3. A particular wavelenght emerges from the arrangement of those atoms.

4. Am I not anywhere near to prove it? All the experiments show the photon has zero mass. In the CERN they discovered the Higgs field through experiments.

 

[Alex_Krycek]

12 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Every bit of evidence we have so far points to consciousness being an emergent property of the brain. What evidence do you have that consciousness is something the brain picks up like a radio from the outside? 

https://www.sciencealert.com/harvard-scientists-think-they-ve-pinpointed-the-neural-source-of-consciousness

https://www.seeker.com/physical-location-of-consciousness-found-in-brain-2086918268.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

I read each of these.  I'll refer mainly to the first two articles as the are most relevant to this specific discussion.  The wikipedia article discusses a wide range of theories on consciousness.  The most relevant excerpt is this passage, as it sums up the foundation of our dialog: (you seem to fall into the monist category and I into the dualist category).

Quote

"Proposed solutions can be divided broadly into two categories: dualist solutions that maintain Descartes' rigid distinction between the realm of consciousness and the realm of matter but give different answers for how the two realms relate to each other; and monist solutions that maintain that there is really only one realm of being, of which consciousness and matter are both aspects. Each of these categories itself contains numerous variants. The two main types of dualism are substance dualism (which holds that the mind is formed of a distinct type of substance not governed by the laws of physics) and property dualism (which holds that the laws of physics are universally valid but cannot be used to explain the mind). The three main types of monism are physicalism (which holds that the mind consists of matter organized in a particular way), idealism (which holds that only thought or experience truly exists, and matter is merely an illusion), and neutral monism (which holds that both mind and matter are aspects of a distinct essence that is itself identical to neither of them). There are also, however, a large number of idiosyncratic theories that cannot cleanly be assigned to any of these schools of thought.

 

First, this introductory sentence to the Science Alert article is key and I think underscores our debate: 

Quote

"Despite advances in neuroscience, we still don't really know where it (consciousness) comes from, and how it arises." 

But this is also important to keep in mind, the article addresses physical origins.  I already agree with you that a physical apparatus is necessary for consciousness to manifest in the material realm. 

Quote

"But researchers think they might have finally figured out its physical origins, after pinpointing a network of three specific regions in the brain that appear to be crucial to consciousness."

However, this doesn't address the question of origin.  The fact that consciousness requires a physical apparatus to operate doesn't discount the possibility of an immaterial origin of consciousness, it only focuses on the physical systems necessary for consciousness to manifest within the brain of a biological organism.

Quote

It's a pretty exciting first step, but the researchers acknowledge that they now need to verify their find across a larger group of patients.Independent teams will also need to confirm their results before we can say for sure that these three regions are the physical source of consciousness in our brains.

It's an interesting discovery, certainly, but ultimately the Harvard team's research needs to be verified. 

But again, the key phrase is "physical source of consciousness".  The article makes a point to differentiate this.  Is there another source? 

This is an important breakthrough and I hope it helps people who are in vegetative states.  As technology advances we will no doubt learn more about the material processes required to allow the manifestation of consciousness.  

But ultimately the question remains open, and this research is not evidence that consciousness originates in the brain, only that a healthy brain is generally necessary for the manifestation of consciousness.  There is a big difference.   

Quote

If you are asserting that the brain is a receiver from consciousness that is broadcast from some unknown source outside the brain then yes we are... 

What is the difference between hypothesizing an external, immaterial source and hypothesizing an internal, material source?

Quote

So now you are going to quote mine Richard Dawkins? "We are biological robots" is actually quite an accurate metaphor for biology.

I was simply making the point that Dawkins engages in the same metaphorical language and hypothetical thinking that others do when debating subjects such as this.    

Quote

Natural selection is is the scientific consensus of why evolutionary pathways result from random factors. 

Falling back on terms like "natural selection" and "evolutionary pathways" and stating that it is the "scientific consensus" does nothing to explain how or why these processes happened / are happening. 

Quote

The spirit of free inquiry, at least in science, requires you to back up your speculation with something other than baseless assertions.

It's the necessary first step in the development of any inquiry: make observations, think of interesting questions, and then form a hypothesis.  Your hypothesis states that because consciousness in many cases ceases when the brain is physically damaged, consciousness must therefore originate in the brain.  Such a viewpoint is inconclusive and requires further evidence.     

Quote

Although I have no expertise in this, I have read many articles that give a plausible explanation of how this could happen. An entertaining read on this, and several other related subjects, is Godel, Escher and Bach by Douglas Hofstadter.

Look interesting.  I will check it out. 

Quote

If I may interject, EEG studies in brain death connects the nonexistence and non-expression of consciousness with brain function cessation. 

Certainly.  I'm aware of this fact.  However, the cessation of function as correlated with the cessation of consciousness isn't enough to determine where consciousness is actually originating.  Further inquiry is needed.

Quote

If not Moontanman, I certainly could in discussion if you are will to sit through several hours of instruction in brain evolution and function, which would include dissection in illustrations and peer-reviewed science spanning nearly 200 years of brain research.  Our brain structure provides a remarkably clear record of how it evolved to its present state.  I learned as much while researching a book on the dreaming brain's neuropsychology.

I'd like to read any information that you can provide. 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[DrmDoc]

3 hours ago, elias_marquez_zoho said:

That's a straw man right there. The only empirical proof we have of consciousness is our personal experience. Cogito ergo sum

You haven't studied the nature of our universe and the 4 physical forces who govern it, then it's easy to understand your misperception.

In pure science (physics), there is no such thing as "separate universes" between the outputs and inputs of a system. A system works with the universe, physicists regard the Laws of Nature as Universal, thanks to the confirmations made by the experiments.

Empirically, unequivocally, unquestionably, scientifically, a system works with the Laws of Nature of our universe, and not separated from those Laws of Nature. This means the light/information (one of the 4 forces of Nature) the system uses, is as basic for the functioning of the system as it is the brain or the neuron. Laws of nature are universal for all the systems involved.

I invite you to know more about the electromagnetic field. QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) is the quantum theory for the electromagnetic force. It is the MOST ACCURATE THEORY ever made by the human being. 12 decimal numbers of accuracy:

OK, by extension of your logic, would I be correct in assuming that our sun in itself is consciousness because its activity conforms to the physical laws and nature of the universe?  That would also suggest that blackholes, dark matter, and a multitude of other stellar phenomena are expressions of consciousness because they too conform to those laws and nature.  Even a loadstone, also by extension of your argument, would be considered conscious because its properties and magnetism are a product of physics.  You seem an intelligent fellow, which is why it's surprising that you fail to comprehend how this argument doesn't adequately explain the nature and specific form of consciousness as produced by humanity.  What happens on a quantum level in humans really isn't that much different than what we may find elsewhere in nature, which suggests a distinction that may only be more precisely understood by studying brain function.  We study the brain because the expression of consciousness in humans has not been observed without its presence and functional evidence.  All things, including brain function, may operate according to the physical laws and nature of the universe but not all things produce the equivalent of human consciousness as human brain function appears to do.  The information a system receives doesn't always determine its output as evinced by humanity's varying responses to equivalent stimuli.  Input and output aren't "separate universes" as you've envisioned, they are merely components of a singular system. 

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Certainly.  I'm aware of this fact.  However, the cessation of function as correlated with the cessation of consciousness isn't enough to determine where consciousness is actually originating.  Further inquiry is needed. 

Huh?  There's no evidence in universally accepted science that human consciousness persist beyond brain death, which leads to the unequivocal conclusion that consciousness originates from brain function.  Even investigating the idea that human consciousness originates from some force, energy, or stimuli outside the brain must begin with the only organ known to be essential to its expression.

Quote

I'd like to read any information you can provide.

This wouldn't be a quick read but rather a separate and lengthy discussion involving our brain's functional anatomy and evolution.  If you are sincerely interested, we should open a separate discussion thread in the appropriate forum. 

[Strange]

15 hours ago, elias_marquez_zoho said:

According to user John Cuthbert, consciousness is only the product of matter structured in certain way. That would mean that if you structure protons, electrons, neutrons, quarks in certain way you will obtain consciousness, while if your structure protons, electrons, neutrons, quarks in other way you will obtain a handkerchief or a rock, and not consciousness. It doesn't solve the problem because they are still the same things.

That makes very little sense. According to you, then, sugar is exactly the same as salt, putty is as hard as diamond, the freezing point of all liquids is exactly the same, and water burns like concentrated sulphuric acid. What a strange world you must inhabit.

Quote

According to that, consciousness would be the fifth state of matter: Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma, and Conscious.

So diamonds, mercury, water and cheese are all different states of matter? If you want to define "state of matter" that way, I suppose you can but it seems a bit silly.

Quote

If you both don't agree to this, you are implicitly admitting consciousness doesn't exist.

I think the only response to that is: bollocks.

Quote

The relation with quantum decoherence is quite understandable. Physics in certain scales work one way and in bigger scales work in a completely different way, with different laws of nature. This is parallel to my former statements about protons, neutrons, quarks, etc.

So this is just another silly reductionist argument: because everything comes down to quantum effects then everything from the shape of Mount Everest to the taste of bananas can be reduced to quantum theory. Again, trivially true but utterly pointless.

13 hours ago, elias_marquez_zoho said:

All the information our senses take is obtained through the exchange of photons between charged particles. Sight, hearing, smelling...

Trivially true but a pointless and irrelevant observation.

Consciousness also arises through the exchange of photons (and virtual photons) between the electrons in the atoms in the molecules in the proteins in the nerves in the brain ... All of which is true but does not explain anything. 

You might as well try and understand how the software to play a video works by looking at the movement of electrons in the channels of transistors. It is, in principle, but utterly pointless.

 

12 hours ago, elias_marquez_zoho said:

3. A particular wavelenght emerges from the arrangement of those atoms.

As does the shape a snowflake, the behaviour of transistors, the properties of proteins, the structure of nerve cells, the behaviour of ion channels, the sensation of consciousness.

You are doing a very good job of showing that the properties of matter, including consciousness, just emerge from particular arrangements of the component parts.

I thought your intention was to do the opposite, but it seems you have failed.

11 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

However, the cessation of function as correlated with the cessation of consciousness isn't enough to determine where consciousness is actually originating. 

What would be? I can't imagine how this could be shown to be the case unequivocally. Whatever further evidence is produced, I think one could always say "yes but that is just part of the mechanism for receiving consciousness."

One could falsify this hypothesis by demonstrating that there IS an external source of consciousness. But until there is such evidence, Occam's Razor applies.

I suppose if we are ever able to produce a truly conscious AI then that would be evidence that consciousness can arise from "inert" matter. But as such a system would probably be so complex that we don't fully understand it (like the brain) then perhaps the same argument could be made: we have just made an artificial system for receiving the external consciousness. Or one could argue that it isn't the same as our (external) consciousness but a just mechanical replica (that just happens to be indistinguishable).

[John Cuthber]

14 hours ago, elias_marquez_zoho said:

.No, it's a particular wavelenght. You see it green, a dog sees it in black and white.

It is that wavelength- a property that emerges from the arrangement of the atoms- because none of the atoms themselves preferentially absorbs, emits or reflects light of that wavelength.

The fact that a dog would have a different label for that property is irrelevant.

 

14 hours ago, elias_marquez_zoho said:

. We are supposed to be much higher than pre-school level.

I look forward to you reaching that level, rather than wasting time telling me about dogs  and CERN.

14 hours ago, elias_marquez_zoho said:

A particular wavelenght emerges from the arrangement of those atoms.

Which makes that wavelength an emergent property- you are getting there slowly.

 

14 hours ago, elias_marquez_zoho said:

Am I not anywhere near to prove it? All the experiments show the photon has zero mass.

Nobody said it had mass (well that's another long argument- it has relativistic mass) because it has no importance to the issue of whether or not light is visible.

You still haven't got close to proving your assertion.

Edited January 28, 2018 by John Cuthber

[Moontanman]

15 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 

However, this doesn't address the question of origin.  The fact that consciousness requires a physical apparatus to operate doesn't discount the possibility of an immaterial origin of consciousness, it only focuses on the physical systems necessary for consciousness to manifest within the brain of a biological organism.

It's an interesting discovery, certainly, but ultimately the Harvard team's research needs to be verified. 

But again, the key phrase is "physical source of consciousness".  The article makes a point to differentiate this.  Is there another source? 

This is an important breakthrough and I hope it helps people who are in vegetative states.  As technology advances we will no doubt learn more about the material processes required to allow the manifestation of consciousness.  

But ultimately the question remains open, and this research is not evidence that consciousness originates in the brain, only that a healthy brain is generally necessary for the manifestation of consciousness.  There is a big difference.   

What is the difference between hypothesizing an external, immaterial source and hypothesizing an internal, material source?

The difference is that we know that a material source is possible because we have access to materials and it is at least hypothetically possible to falsify this. No known immaterial source exists and there is no known way to test for this. In the face of a total lack of evidence the default position is there is no immaterial source for consciousness... 

I can hypothesize anything, I hypothesize a basketball is in orbit around Uranus, you cannot show it is not so I must consider the basketball as real or even possible? Then the invisible pixies must be considered as equal...

 

15 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I was simply making the point that Dawkins engages in the same metaphorical language and hypothetical thinking that others do when debating subjects such as this.    

Falling back on terms like "natural selection" and "evolutionary pathways" and stating that it is the "scientific consensus" does nothing to explain how or why these processes happened / are happening. 

It's the necessary first step in the development of any inquiry: make observations, think of interesting questions, and then form a hypothesis.  Your hypothesis states that because consciousness in many cases ceases when the brain is physically damaged, consciousness must therefore originate in the brain.  Such a viewpoint is inconclusive and requires further evidence.     

Magical thinking is not science, an unknown supernatural source for consciousness is nothing but magical thinking.. 

 

15 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 

 

 

[Alex_Krycek]

On 1/28/2018 at 1:09 AM, DrmDoc said:

Huh?  There's no evidence in universally accepted science that human consciousness persist beyond brain death, which leads to the unequivocal conclusion that consciousness originates from brain function. 

This doesn't follow for several reasons.  First, I have to address the phrase that you use: "universally accepted science" in relation to the actual consensus in the scientific community.  There are few more hotly contested issues than the issue of consciousness, so the idea that your viewpoint of material origin is "universally accepted" is simply not the case.

You are part of a subgroup that exists within the scientific community, a subgroup that holds a positivist / monist / mechanistic / materialist philosophical viewpoint and you are applying your philosophical viewpoint to the issue of consciousness without conclusive evidence.  There are many who don't agree with your interpretation. 

It is common practice when human beings are divided on philosophical matters to presume to be in the majority, to project one's viewpoints as "universal".   This happens in religion frequently.  One particular sect represents the "true faith", the true interpretation of the holy book, while the other interpretations are cast aside as heretical.  In short, it is a cognitive bias which results, in my view, from the unconscious insecurity associated with holding an incomplete model of the universe. 

Second, even if such an issue were "universally accepted", such widespread acceptance would not make that theory true or untrue.  The number of people who believe in a particular theory has nothing to do with said theory's veracity.  If this were the case, then relativity theory would have become "more true" since it's publication in 1916, and we can both agree such a notion would be absurd. 

On 1/28/2018 at 3:31 PM, Moontanman said:

The difference is that we know that a material source is possible because we have access to materials and it is at least hypothetically possible to falsify this. No known immaterial source exists and there is no known way to test for this. In the face of a total lack of evidence the default position is there is no immaterial source for consciousness...

You're adopting a very rigid positivist philosophy here with regards to this subject, and I think such a viewpoint is inherently limiting and will only stifle free inquiry into the more obscure questions that need to be asked regarding consciousness.

More on positivism:

Quote

 

^{"At the turn of the 20th century the first wave of German sociologists, including Max Weber and Georg Simmel, rejected the doctrine [of positivism]], thus founding the antipositivist tradition in sociology. Later antipositivists and critical theorists have associated positivism with "scientism"; science as ideology.[14] Later in his career (1969),[15] German theoretical physicist Werner Heisenberg, Nobel laureate for pioneering work in quantum mechanics, distanced himself from positivism by saying:}

^{"The positivists have a simple solution: the world must be divided into that which we can say clearly and the rest, which we had better pass over in silence. But can any one conceive of a more pointless philosophy, seeing that what we can say clearly amounts to next to nothing? If we omitted all that is unclear we would probably be left with completely uninteresting and trivial tautologies."}

 

 

  More from Heisenberg, after being asked about Neils Bohr's remarks about positivism:

Quote

"I would consider it absurd - and Niels [Bohr] would agree - would I to close my mind to the problems and ideas of earlier philosophers simply because they cannot be expressed in a more precise language...positivists will object that you are making obscure and meaningless noises, whereas they themselves are models of analytic clarity.  But where must we seek for the truth, in obscurity or in clarity?"

Quote

Magical thinking is not science, an unknown supernatural source for consciousness is nothing but magical thinking.. 

The magic of thinking is that it can probe into the depths of the unknown and begin to fathom what was once unfathomable.  This is the pioneering spirit of science which originated from Natural Philosophy, which was decried at that time as being "overly metaphysical".
 

Quote

 

^{"Naturphilosophie attempted to comprehend nature in its totality and to outline its general theoretical structure, thus attempting to lay the foundations for the natural sciences. In developing their theories, the German Naturphilosophen found their inspiration in the natural philosophy of the Ancient Greek Ionian philosophers.}

^{As an approach to philosophy and science, Naturphilosophie has had a difficult reception. In Germany, Neo-Kantians came to distrust its developments as speculative and overly metaphysical."}

 

^{It was these same Neo Kantians who leveled the first criticisms of the theory of relativity, due in no small part for it's implications to their own philosophical perspective.} 

One such early pioneer was Johan Wilhem Ritter, who discovered ultraviolet light, among other things.  He was a student of natural philosophy. 
 

Quote

 

Ritter made several self-experiments applying the poles of a voltaic pile to his own hands, eyes, ears, nose and tongue.^[5] He also described the difference between the physiological effects of the two poles of the pile, although some of the effects he reported were not confirmed afterwards.

Many of Ritter's researches were guided by a search for polarities in the several "forces" of nature, and for the relation between those "forces" – two of the assumptions of Naturphilosophie. In 1801, after hearing about the discovery of "heat rays" (infrared radiation) by William Herschel (in 1800), Ritter looked for an opposite (cooling) radiation at the other end of the visible spectrum. He did not find exactly what he expected to find, but after a series of attempts he noticed that silver chloride was transformed faster from white to black when it was placed at the dark region of the Sun's spectrum, close to its violet end. The "chemical rays" found by him were afterwards called ultraviolet radiation.^[6][7][8]

Some of Ritter's researches were acknowledged as important scientific contributions, but he also claimed the discovery of many phenomena that were not confirmed by other researchers. For instance: he reported that the Earth had electric poles that could be detected by the motion of a bimetallic needle; and he claimed that he could produce the electrolysis of water using a series of magnets, instead of Volta's piles.

 

 

What if Ritter has foregone his experiments because there was "no evidence"?  Such a positivist mindset would have precluded more or less all the great scientific breakthroughs.  To Ritter the possibility of the "force" of ultraviolet light must have been within the realm of his comprehension, but what if you suggested the same thing to Archimedes or Plato?  Surely these great men would reject the notion of different spectrums of light as "magical thinking", as they did not possess the instrumentation to measure or test for them, or would they perhaps entertain them in the realm of philosophy?  Similarly, we do not yet possess a means that is capable of truly analyzing consciousness.  Perhaps in the future we will, when scientists look back pityingly on CERN as quaint and primitive.

In lieu of the positivist approach, which is limited, understanding consciousness requires instead a noetic approach:

Quote

 

Philosophers from Plato forward have used the term noetic to refer to experiences that pioneering psychologist William James (1902) described as:

…states of insight into depths of truth unplumbed by the discursive intellect. They are illuminations, revelations, full of significance and importance, all inarticulate though they remain; and as a rule they carry with them a curious sense of authority.

 

 

From Douglas Hofstadter's book Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid regarding:

Quote

Looked at this way, Gödel's proof suggests – though by no means does it prove! – that there could be some high-level way of viewing the mind/brain, involving concepts which do not appear on lower levels, and that this level might have explanatory power that does not exist – not even in principle – on lower levels. It would mean that some facts could be explained on the high level quite easily, but not on lower levels at all. No matter how long and cumbersome a low-level statement were made, it would not explain the phenomena in question.

So at some point there must be a departure from the "known" to the "unknown", from the fireside of comfortable evidence to the abyss of potentiality that may overturn that evidence. 

David Bohm's theories on the nature of consciousness and the "implicate order" address this point of departure, however, he rejected a dualistic approach, preferring to see the mind and body being involved in one continuous movement of an unfolded universe:

Quote

This connection of the mind and body has commonly been called psychosomatic (from the Greek ‘psyche’, meaning ‘mind’ and ‘soma’, meaning ‘body’). This word is generally used, however, in such a way as to imply that mind and body are separately existent but connected by some sort of interaction. Such a meaning is not compatible with the implicate order. In the implicate order we have to say that mind enfolds matter in general and therefore the body in particular. Similarly, the body enfolds not only the mind but also in some sense the entire material universe. (In the manner explained earlier in this section, both through the senses and through the fact that the constituent atoms of the body are actually structures that are enfolded in principle throughout all space.) -David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Page 265

He continues:

Quote

Whatever may be the nature of these inward depths of consciousness, they are the very ground, both of the explicit content and of that content which is usually called implicit. Although this ground may not appear in ordinary consciousness, it may nevertheless be present in a certain way. Just as the vast ‘sea’ of energy in space is present to our perception as a sense of emptiness or nothingness so the vast ‘unconscious’ background of explicit consciousness with all its implications is present in a similar way. That is to say, it may be sensed as an emptiness, a nothingness, within which the usual content of consciousness is only a vanishingly small set of facets.

In other words,  the true nature of consciousness is ever-present, but immeasurable.  Thus, to rely on understanding the material components of something like the human brain as the full spectrum of what consciousness actually is is an incomplete approach.

Quote

Even investigating the idea that human consciousness originates from some force, energy, or stimuli outside the brain must begin with the only organ known to be essential to its expression.

This isn't evidence to support your hypothesis, that consciousness originates in the brain.  This statement merely recognizes that for human beings a brain is necessary to inquire into the question of consciousness.  It doesn't address the question of origin.  The universe may in fact be conscious, objectively speaking, with or without our existence. 

Quote

This wouldn't be a quick read but rather a separate and lengthy discussion involving our brain's functional anatomy and evolution.  If you are sincerely interested, we should open a separate discussion thread in the appropriate forum. 

It would be an interesting discussion, however after all is said and done merely analyzing from a mechanistic perspective the anatomical workings of the brain in relationship to evolution would still not settle the question of the origin of consciousness.  Such a discussion would ultimately be an analytical elaboration on your aforementioned presupposition that consciousness originates in the brain.  

 

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

This doesn't follow for several reasons.  First, I have to address the phrase that you use: "universally accepted science" in relation to the actual consensus in the scientific community.  There are few more hotly contested issues than the issue of consciousness, so the idea that your viewpoint of material origin is "universally accepted" is simply not the case.

He did not say that science universally asserted or accepted these things, he was saying that science, as universally accepted, does not accept the idea of a supernatural  cause for anything much less consciousness. 

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

You are part of a subgroup that exists within the scientific community, a subgroup that holds a positivist / monist / mechanistic / materialist philosophical viewpoint and you are applying your philosophical viewpoint to the issue of consciousness without conclusive evidence.  There are many who don't agree with your interpretation. 

How many? You can find scientists that think almost anything but the consensus of most is what we are talking about.  

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

It is common practice when human beings are divided on philosophical matters to presume to be in the majority, to project one's viewpoints as "universal".   This happens in religion frequently.  One particular sect represents the "true faith", the true interpretation of the holy book, while the other interpretations are cast aside as heretical.  In short, it is a cognitive bias which results, in my view, from the unconscious insecurity associated with holding an incomplete model of the universe.

This is an interesting comparison since religion has no empirical evidence and is all at best baseless speculation.  

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 

 

Second, even if such an issue were "universally accepted", such widespread acceptance would not make that theory true or untrue.  The number of people who believe in a particular theory has nothing to do with said theory's veracity.  If this were the case, then relativity theory would have become "more true" since it's publication in 1916, and we can both agree such a notion would be absurd. 

No in fact "Relativity Theory" as you put it has been put to the test many times and as it passes these challenges it does become more likely to be true. You are playing with the definition of words here. 

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

You're adopting a very rigid positivist philosophy here with regards to this subject, and I think such a viewpoint is inherently limiting and will only stifle free inquiry into the more obscure questions that need to be asked regarding consciousness.

No, the viewpoint is not rigid, the scientific method does not stifle free inquiry, but science does need an actual mechanism or effect to be considered. Saying that there is no evidence for visiting aliens is not the same as saying there are no aliens. If you have evidence supporting the supernatural then you should show it, if you can't show it then you don't know it.. 

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

More on positivism:

All the following are arguments from authority, if there is evidence of your position show it, don't try to use the words of others as proof. That way leads to the sifling of scientific inquiry...

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 

  More from Heisenberg, after being asked about Neils Bohr's remarks about positivism:

The magic of thinking is that it can probe into the depths of the unknown and begin to fathom what was once unfathomable.  This is the pioneering spirit of science which originated from Natural Philosophy, which was decried at that time as being "overly metaphysical".
 

^{It was these same Neo Kantians who leveled the first criticisms of the theory of relativity, due in no small part for it's implications to their own philosophical perspective.} 

One such early pioneer was Johan Wilhem Ritter, who discovered ultraviolet light, among other things.  He was a student of natural philosophy. 
 

What if Ritter has foregone his experiments because there was "no evidence"?  Such a positivist mindset would have precluded more or less all the great scientific breakthroughs.  To Ritter the possibility of the "force" of ultraviolet light must have been within the realm of his comprehension, but what if you suggested the same thing to Archimedes or Plato?  Surely these great men would reject the notion of different spectrums of light as "magical thinking", as they did not possess the instrumentation to measure or test for them, or would they perhaps entertain them in the realm of philosophy?  Similarly, we do not yet possess a means that is capable of truly analyzing consciousness.  Perhaps in the future we will, when scientists look back pityingly on CERN as quaint and primitive.

In lieu of the positivist approach, which is limited, understanding consciousness requires instead a noetic approach:

 

From Douglas Hofstadter's book Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid regarding:

So at some point there must be a departure from the "known" to the "unknown", from the fireside of comfortable evidence to the abyss of potentiality that may overturn that evidence. 

David Bohm's theories on the nature of consciousness and the "implicate order" address this point of departure, however, he rejected a dualistic approach, preferring to see the mind and body being involved in one continuous movement of an unfolded universe:

He continues:

In other words,  the true nature of consciousness is ever-present, but immeasurable.  Thus, to rely on understanding the material components of something like the human brain as the full spectrum of what consciousness actually is is an incomplete approach.

This isn't evidence to support your hypothesis, that consciousness originates in the brain.  This statement merely recognizes that for human beings a brain is necessary to inquire into the question of consciousness.  It doesn't address the question of origin.  The universe may in fact be conscious, objectively speaking, with or without our existence. 

Yeah, there could be invisible pixies holding the Moon in orbit around the Earth but to say not including that idea stifles inquiry is absurd... 

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

It would be an interesting discussion, however after all is said and done merely analyzing from a mechanistic perspective the anatomical workings of the brain in relationship to evolution would still not settle the question of the origin of consciousness.  Such a discussion would ultimately be an analytical elaboration on your aforementioned presupposition that consciousness originates in the brain.  

 

 

You are again twisting words here, there is no presupposition that consciousness originates in the brain, there is only the fact that no evidence supports anything else. If you have some I would suggest you tell us instead of using logical fallacies to obfusticate the discussion...   

[Bender]

I find the hypothesis of a metaphysical consciousness useless. Can this hypothesis be used to make predictions? It doesn't even present a mechanism.

Neither does it present a way to fit in evolution theory. Which animals are supposedly "receptive" to consciousness? Why did it evolve?

The materialist view is a lot more consistent : as brain functions became more complex, higher order functions evolved to keep an overview. The only reason we are conscious could be to organise and prioritise all the subroutines in our brain. Much like Windows or Gnome organises all processes on a computer, so we don't have to care about all the low level calculations. No further explanation is required.

 

Finally, this thread lacks a proper definition of consciousness. To be useful, such a definition should not depend on other vague concepts, such as "intelligent" or "aware", and should not contain human exclusivity.

I maintain my claim that given a concrete definition and sufficiently complex computer, I can program that computer to comply with that definition. If a computer can be conscious, that consciousness clearly originates from matter, since no weird receptors were included in its design.

[DrmDoc]

7 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

This doesn't follow for several reasons.  First, I have to address the phrase that you use: "universally accepted science" in relation to the actual consensus in the scientific community.  There are few more hotly contested issues than the issue of consciousness, so the idea that your viewpoint of material origin is "universally accepted" is simply not the case.

You are part of a subgroup that exists within the scientific community, a subgroup that holds a positivist / monist / mechanistic / materialist philosophical viewpoint and you are applying your philosophical viewpoint to the issue of consciousness without conclusive evidence.  There are many who don't agree with your interpretation. 

It is common practice when human beings are divided on philosophical matters to presume to be in the majority, to project one's viewpoints as "universal".   This happens in religion frequently.  One particular sect represents the "true faith", the true interpretation of the holy book, while the other interpretations are cast aside as heretical.  In short, it is a cognitive bias which results, in my view, from the unconscious insecurity associated with holding an incomplete model of the universe. 

Second, even if such an issue were "universally accepted", such widespread acceptance would not make that theory true or untrue.  The number of people who believe in a particular theory has nothing to do with said theory's veracity.  If this were the case, then relativity theory would have become "more true" since it's publication in 1916, and we can both agree such a notion would be absurd. 

Well, let's see if we can put our debate to rest.  Given what measure of knowledge you may have of human physiology, do you believe you would still possess the means to physically express consciousness with the destruction of your brain after its removal from your body?  Do you think you'd physically be able to ambulate, articulate, and live a meaningful life without even the thinnest layer of brain tissue?  If you've bothered to review any universally accepted medical evidence--evidence derived through scientific methodology--your answer to both questions should be a firm no.  You would be affirming that you cannot express consciousness without some brain structure.  There is no evidence derived through universally accepted methods in medical science and research for the existence of human consciousness without the presence of brain tissue.  In other words, unless you can produce real evidence of a live human being living a meaningful life indicative of consciousness without the slightest measure of brain tissue, then any answer in the affirmative to my questions would be clearly disingenuous.  Your appear to be asserting that consciousness is independent of brain function without evidence supporting that assertion.  Belief in an idea without supporting evidence is religion, not science.  Are you discussing religion or are you discussing science?

Edited February 1, 2018 by DrmDoc

[Alex_Krycek]

1 hour ago, DrmDoc said:

Well, let's see if we can put our debate to rest.  Given what measure of knowledge you may have of human physiology, do you believe you would still possess the means to physically express consciousness with the destruction of your brain after its removal from your body? 

It's extremely unlikely.  And we already discussed this point; I agree that a physical apparatus is necessary (at least in humankind) for the expression of human consciousness in this particular dimension.  But this fact does nothing to answer the question of origin, it merely relies on an assumption that the material apparatus is where consciousness originates.  There are clues as to an alternative, as I mentioned before with extremely complex behavior existing in insects without highly developed brains.   

Quote

Do you think you'd physically be able to ambulate, articulate, and live a meaningful life without even the thinnest layer of brain tissue?  If you've bothered to review any universally accepted medical evidence--evidence derived through scientific methodology--your answer to both questions should be a firm no.  You would be affirming that you cannot express consciousness without some brain structure.  There is no evidence derived through universally accepted methods in medical science and research for the existence of human consciousness without the presence of brain tissue. 

There was no evidence for ultraviolet light before Ritter discovered it.  Nor was there evidence for neuroplasticity before scientists like Norman Doidge came along.  The fact that we don't have evidence for a particular theory doesn't make it untrue.  The fact that we have incomplete evidence doesn't make something true.  What is important is asking questions, formulating hypotheses, and working towards a way to test them, even if our current state of limited technology precludes it. 

Quote

In other words, unless you can produce real evidence of a live human being living a meaningful life indicative of consciousness without the slightest measure of brain tissue, then any answer in the affirmative to my questions would be clearly disingenuous.  Your appear to be asserting that consciousness is independent of brain function without evidence supporting that assertion.  Belief in an idea without supporting evidence is religion, not science.  Are you discussing religion or are you discussing science?

I'm not asserting, I'm just questioning an unsupported assumption that you're putting forward.  I think there is the possibility that your viewpoint is incomplete, that's all.  All science begins with questions, and questions lead to hypotheses.  There are many hypotheses by "universally accepted science" that are untestable.  Multiverse theory, for example, is one such untestable theory.  So I don't see it as "religious" ,as you say,  to ask questions that challenge someone else's worldview.  If anything it is more religious to posit an unproven theory as scientific gospel and attempt to shut down any inquiry into an alternative.  Science was born from philosophy, from wanting to understand the universe.  Philosophy is where most scientists who want to truly delve into the novel unknown end up - those such as Einstein, Heisenberg, and Bohm, among many others have found themselves squarely in this realm.  In this territory positivism is essentially useless, as you are dealing with phenomena that we either A.) don't comprehend  B.) partially comprehend but can't test  or C.) we can't comprehend or test.

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[Bender]

4 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

It's extremely unlikely.  And we already discussed this point; I agree that a physical apparatus is necessary (at least in humankind) for the expression of human consciousness in this particular dimension.  But this fact does nothing to answer the question of origin, it merely relies on an assumption that the material apparatus is where consciousness originates.  There are clues as to an alternative, as I mentioned before with extremely complex behavior existing in insects without highly developed brains.

There may not have been evidence, but there was a mechanism.

[Strange]

11 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

But this fact does nothing to answer the question of origin, it merely relies on an assumption that the material apparatus is where consciousness originates. 

It is an assumption consistent with the evidence.

The idea of the brain as a TV receiving undetectable signals from an unknown (and undetectable) source is not really consistent with any evidence. It is just wishful thinking.

What would falsify this external source of intelligence? If it cannot be falsified, it is not a scientific concept.

11 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

There are clues as to an alternative, as I mentioned before with extremely complex behavior existing in insects without highly developed brains.

By this argument, we don't need a Turing test for consciousness. Any sufficiently complex robot is evidence of consciousness being received from an external source. 

And what is "extremely complex" behaviour? An amoeba hunting food? But we understand the biochemical processes that cause organisms to move towards or away from objects. A plant distributing its seeds by making the fruit attractive to an animal that it "knows" will carry them a long way? Spiders making webs? Ants building nests?

There is no reason to think that these behaviours require, or are evidence of consciousness of, any level of intelligence. They are just mechanical processes. If you interrupt them, they will just start again. If you stop a spider from building a web it will just start a new one. You can keep doing this until it dies of starvation. It is not aware that there is something stopping it or that it should do something different. You are just resetting the machine each time. Eventually it runs out of fuel

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, Strange said:

By this argument, we don't need a Turing test for consciousness. Any sufficiently complex robot is evidence of consciousness being received from an external source. 

Except in this example we would already know the source of that consciousness: human beings.  Where we derive our consciousness from (and why) is still an open question.

Just now, Strange said:

And what is "extremely complex" behaviour? An amoeba hunting food? But we understand the biochemical processes that cause organisms to move towards or away from objects. A plant distributing its seeds by making the fruit attractive to an animal that it "knows" will carry them a long way? Spiders making webs? Ants building nests?

There is no reason to think that these behaviours require, or are evidence of consciousness of, any level of intelligence. They are just mechanical processes. If you interrupt them, they will just start again. If you stop a spider from building a web it will just start a new one. You can keep doing this until it dies of starvation. It is not aware that there is something stopping it or that it should do something different. You are just resetting the machine each time. Eventually it runs out of fuel.

If you're choosing to embrace mechanism as a catch all theory, and the machine metaphor as an explanation, then what programmed these machines, and to what end? 

[Strange]

31 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Except in this example we would already know the source of that consciousness: human beings.

I'm not sure I understand that: You think that robots are receivers, like the brain, for consciousness from humans?

33 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Except in this example we would already know the source of that consciousness: human beings.  Where we derive our consciousness from (and why) is still an open question.

So the seems to be a statement about hw consciousness came to be, rather than where it comes from (on a day to day basis, so to speak). 

I see no reason that it shouldn't have arisen as a side effect of the evolution of the brain. Thinking that it must be different from every other aspect of our morphology and our behaviour seems to me to be just an argument from incredulity. (Or, in some cases, from religious belief.)

36 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

If you're choosing to embrace mechanism as a catch all theory, and the machine metaphor as an explanation, then what programmed these machines, and to what end? 

I'm not choosing it so much as following the evidence. 

And the thing that "programmed" these machines is evolution. 

To what end? To reproduce their DNA.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

and to what end?

I wonder if this is at the heart of the different (scientific vs. magical) approaches to the subject: you see apparent purpose in a spider's web or a murmuration of sparrows or the existence of consciousness; we see emergent behaviours driven by evolution. 

You may be correct in thinking there is some driving force/entity/whatever producing all these things but as it produces results that are indistinguishable from a world where it doesn't exist, I am going to stick with Occam on this one. 

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, Strange said:

I'm not sure I understand that: You think that robots are receivers, like the brain, for consciousness from humans?

You wrote:  "By this argument, we don't need a Turing test for consciousness. Any sufficiently complex robot is evidence of consciousness being received from an external source." 

My point was that if we're able to create a fully sentient, conscious AI, then that still wouldn't explain the origins of our own consciousness.  Animal/ plant life (and life in general) demonstrates levels of complexity, awareness, and purposive behavior that reflects an evolutionary trajectory towards intelligence. 

Just now, Strange said:

So the seems to be a statement about how consciousness came to be, rather than where it comes from (on a day to day basis, so to speak). 

I see no reason that it shouldn't have arisen as a side effect of the evolution of the brain. Thinking that it must be different from every other aspect of our morphology and our behaviour seems to me to be just an argument from incredulity. (Or, in some cases, from religious belief.)

The alternative perspective is that consciousness is not an epiphenomenon of evolution, but the very purpose of evolution itself. 

Just now, Strange said:

I'm not choosing it so much as following the evidence. 

And the thing that "programmed" these machines is evolution. 

To what end? To reproduce their DNA.

I think the machine metaphor is outdated, if not obsolete.  Mechanistic materialism may have been a useful philosophy in the 1600s when reductionism found traction, but there are too many glaring differences between organic life and machines to justify it's use any longer.  The whole really is greater than the sum of its parts.  Any attributes that may be similar between a machine and organic life, such as communication or autonomous behavior, human beings have purposely chosen to create.  Machines are a reflection of our creative intelligence (which is required for their existence).  This creative intelligence is what separates us, and arguably all organic life, from something that is purely mechanical.   

Quote

 

I wonder if this is at the heart of the different (scientific vs. magical) approaches to the subject: you see apparent purpose in a spider's web or a murmuration of sparrows or the existence of consciousness; we see emergent behaviours driven by evolution. 

I don't see purpose as "magical".  I see purpose as the logical movement of a universal evolutionary trajectory towards intelligence.  There is purpose in a spider's web, the murmuration of sparrows, and the existence of consciousness.  For the first, it's to catch prey.  The second, to communicate with other sparrows.  The third, to understand the universe and our place in it.  These are but three of an infinite number of iterations within this evolutionary trajectory.   

Quote

You may be correct in thinking there is some driving force/entity/whatever producing all these things but as it produces results that are indistinguishable from a world where it doesn't exist, I am going to stick with Occam on this one.

I think it actually makes a huge difference how you see the world.  If one believes that life is merely the haphazard result of random chance, a cosmic accident existing in a dead, mechanistic universe, that person will probably go on to view life with much less value than a person who views life as unique and sacred, the progeny of a "higher power" whose exact nature cannot be comprehended.  On the one hand life is disposable and irrelevant, on the other it is indispensable and priceless.   

The ""observer - observed" phenomena comes into play here.  As finite observers attempting to integrate and understand what is essentially an infinitely complex system, the philosophical underpinnings of our approach play a huge role in what we will eventually interpret as true.  Truisms that a scientist may assert as axiomatically normative and the logical end result of an objective analysis based on verified evidence (read: positivism) may in fact be deeply contaminated with unconscious assumptions and subjective conditioning. 

This is why I find David Bohm's work in the area of consciousness so fascinating.  Because of his deep expertise in quantum mechanics, and his extensive dialogues with eastern mystics such as J. Krishnamurti, Bohm gained access to a synergistic perspective that has allowed him to go further than anyone in reconciling the subjective and the objective in a way that is not arbitrary or biased.